A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 1 of 3

by George Elliott Howard

[938] Sohm, op. cit., 108 ff. That the church adopted the Roman marriage forms is the generally accepted view: see Sehling, Unterscheidung der Verlöbnisse, 24 ff.; Schubert, Die evangel. Trauung, 4 ff.; Scheurl, Entwicklung des kirch. Eheschliessungsrechts, 8 ff.; idem, "Consensus facit nuptias," ZKR., XXII, 269 ff.; Biener, "Beiträge," ibid., XX, 119, 120; Richter-Dove-Kahl, Lehrbuch, 1029, 1030; Loening, Gesch. des deutsch. Kirchenrechts, II, 569 ff.; Dieckhoff, Kirchliche Trauung, 12 ff.; Moy, Eherecht der Christen, 94 ff., 215 ff., 372 ff.

On the other hand, Freisen, in Archiv für kath. Kirchenrecht, LIII, 369 ff., holds that the early Christians followed mainly Jewish custom. Cf. idem, Geschichte des canon. Eherechts, 120 ff.

[939] Dig., xxiii, tit. i, 1: "Sponsalia sunt mentio et repromissio nuptiarum futurarum."—Corpus juris civ., I, 294. Cf. Sohm, Eheschliessung, 109, 110; Klein, Das Eheverlöbniss, 122 ff.

[940] By the older Roman law the betrothal was in form a contract by stipulatio, and there was an action for damage in case of nonfulfilment: Gellius, Noctes atticae, iv, 4; Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiquities, II, 139, 140. The later law gave no such action: Dig., xxiii, tit. i, 10: Corpus juris civ., I, 291; Codex, V, 5; though to enter into two betrothals at once was held to constitute infamia, the same as two marriages: Dig., iii, tit. ii, 1: Corpus juris civ., I, 36. Cf. Ludlow, in Dict. Christ. Antiq., I, 203; Klein, Das Eheverlöbniss, 22 ff., 125, 126; Riedler, Bedingte Eheschliessung, 11, 12; Scheurl, Entwicklung, 9-11; Loening, Geschichte des deutsch. Kirchenrechts, II, 569, 570, who shows that after the third century the betrothal became more important in Roman law; Sehling, Unterscheidung, 20, 21, notes; Rein, Das röm. Privatrecht, 188, 189; Brissonius, De ritu nuptiarum (Paris, 1654), 1 ff.; Beauchet, Étude, 11 ff.; Schubert, Die evangel. Trauung, 11, notes.

[941] But Sohm, Eheschliessung, 110, who was preceded by Glück, Güterrecht, 1, 97 ff., contends, against the common interpretation of the maxim consensus facit nuptias, that a merely "formless" consensus not followed by actual wedded life is not sufficient to constitute a Roman marriage. That would be practically a consensus sponsalitius or Roman betrothal. On the other hand, Sehling, Unterscheidung der Verlöbnisse, 7 ff., 138 ff., 157 ff., insists that by the Roman law a formless nuptial contract, whether followed by cohabitation or not, constitutes a binding marriage. Such also is the view of Dieckhoff, Kirch. Trauung, 15; Schubert, Die evangel. Trauung, 4 ff., 11; and Scheurl, Entwicklung, 11. But Scheurl, "Consensus facit nuptias," ZKR., XXII, 269 ff., agrees with Sohm, in effect, though not avowedly. For, while he says that marriage by confarreatio, for example, would be a valid marriage, even if the parties never lived together, yet the Roman law, he points out, does not reveal the evils of clandestine unions, because the formless nuptial promise implied the common wedded life. Cf. also Bierling, "Kleine Beiträge," ZKR., XVI, 288 ff., who criticises Scheurl; Freisen, Geschichte des can. Eherechts, 101 ff.; and Rein, Das röm. Privatrecht (1836), 188, 189.

[942] "For even on earth children do not rightfully and lawfully wed without their father's consent."—Tertullian, To His Wife, Book II, c. viii: Ante-Nicene Fathers, IV, 48. According to Ulpian, in Dig., 1, tit. xvii, 1. 30, "Nuptias non concubitus, sed consensus facit." But Paulus, ibid., xxiii, tit. ii, 1. 2, shows that the consensus "must be at once that of the parties themselves, and of those in whose potestas they are." See the excellent article of Ludlow, in Dict. Christ. Antiq., I, 433-36.

[943] Sohm, Eheschliessung, 107-52; idem, Trauung und Verlobung, 58-109. In opposition to Sohm's view, Sehling, Unterscheidung der Verlöbnisse, 138 ff., 165 ff., contends that the sponsalia (betrothal and nuptial promises) of the mediæval canon law are derived from the law of Rome. Such also is the position of Zoepfl, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte (4th ed.), III, §§ 81 ff.; Schulte, Handbuch des kath. Eherechts (1855), 37, 278; Walter, Kirchenrecht (14th ed.), § 298; and Loening, Gesch. des deutsch. Kirchenrechts, II, 601, following Sohm in the main. Schubert, Die evangel. Trauung, 37, takes a medial position: "die Kirche bildete ihr eigenes Recht in Anlehnung an das deutsche Recht aus." Scheurl, Entwicklung, 93, 94, 95 ff., passim; idem, Das gemeine deutsche Eherecht, 14, 15, reviews and criticises Sohm on various points. Friedberg, Verlobung und Trauung, 25, contrary to the position taken in Eheschliessung, 6, 202, accepts Sohm's view, but with reservations. See also his Lehrbuch, 339 ff.

[944] Sohm, Eheschliessung, 107, 108. Cf. idem, Ob. Civilehe, 25; and Schubert, Die evangel. Trauung, 5 ff., who agrees with Sohm. The conservative view of the religious character of early Christian marriage is represented by Klein, Eheverlöbniss, 95 ff.; Dieckhoff, Die kirch. Trauung, 20 ff., passim.

[945] The custom of benediction may have been influenced by Jewish practice. The Hebrew benediction was given "not necessarily by a priest, but by the eldest friend or relative present": Meyrick, in Dict. Christ. Antiq., II, 1107, who gives the benediction in abridged form. Cf. Selden, Uxor ebraica, II, 12.

On the teachings of the Christian fathers as to the form of marriage see Martene, De ritibus, II, lib. I, c. ix, 120-44; Selden, Uxor ebraica, 179-84, 665-69, passim; Schubert, Die evangel. Trauung, 4 ff.; Loening, Gesch. des deutsch. Kirchenrechts, II, 573 ff.; Dieckhoff, Die kirch. Trauung, 20 ff.; Friedberg, Lehrbuch, 337 ff.; Phillips, Lehrbuch, 612 ff.; Biener, "Beiträge," ZKR., XX, 119-27.